Murthy v. Missouri

In Murthy v. Missouri, the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with several social media users, sued federal officials including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. They alleged that the Biden administration pressured platforms to suppress COVID-19 vaccine skepticism and election-related misinformation, violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they failed to show that the platforms' content moderation decisions were traceable to government coercion rather than independent judgment. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and dismissed the case, emphasizing that government persuasion does not automatically constitute unconstitutional compulsion.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the federal officials' conduct. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case.

The main dispute was whether federal officials' communications with social media platforms amounted to unconstitutional government coercion or merely permissible persuasion, and whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to sue, particularly regarding traceability and redressability of their alleged injuries.

The decision clarified the boundary between government persuasion and coercion in social media content moderation, limiting future "jawboning" claims against federal officials. It affirmed the executive branch's ability to communicate with platforms on public health and election integrity while constraining judicial remedies for alleged informal censorship.